Mar 26, 2011 7:00pm EDT
university. the actions the u.s. has taken. the transition to nato command. monday at 7:30 eastern. c-span and c-span radio. >> i am not interested in developing a strategy to win the primary and not winning the general. we have done well everywhere. >> rick santorum sits down to discuss a presidential bid in 2012. on c-span. >> as protest continue, and as nato sets to take control find the latest from the administration officials . all searchable on your computer. watch what you want, when yo u want. >> a look between the relations between the u.s. and libya. this is about 45 minutes. van is a securities studies adjufpkt professor at georgetown university and joins us to talk about the relations between the united states and libya both on diplomat and military fronts. take us through the evolution of the relationship between u.s. and libya say from the mid 60s up through the present. guest: i think it's important to start earlier than that if we look back at the time period when it wasn't libya yet it was actually part of the otoman empire. and if you listen to the
Mar 12, 2011 7:00pm EST
would like to reserve five minutes for a rebuttal. the government has shut down a u.s. corporation indefinitely, imposing on it a form of civil providing notice of the charges against it before the administrative process was close. the corporation had no opportunity for a rebut. the government cannot deprive an individual of its property or deny an illegal alien a benefit without providing meaningful notice of the charges and disclosing the critical arguments against it. the government maintains that no rights were violated. on the contrary, the multiple errors are present and altered the corp.'s right to defend itself. -- government can prohibit them from speaking out. because of the pursued role -- procedural charges, i will start with them. i will turn to the first amendment claims and then the fourth amendment. the failure to provide notice until the end of the process in 2008 when the record was closed and the decision was made. that independently violates due process. >> as i understand the posture of the case, there has been no cross appeal. there was, but it was withdrawn.
Mar 5, 2011 7:00pm EST
ashcroft could be held personally liable for the detention of an american was numb. the u.s. citizen -- an american citizen. the u.s. citizen claims he was held against his will on charges of having terrorist ties that could not be proven. justice kagan did not participate in this case. >> we'll hear argument next this morning in case 10-98, ashcroft v. al-kidd. general katyal. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: this lawsuit seeks personal money damages against a former attorney general of the united states for doing his job, allegedly with an improper motive, yet the attorney general, like the federal prosecutor in idaho who sought the material witness warrant at issue in this case, was performing the functions of his office. there are three reasons why the petitioner should not be personally liable for money damages. the first is because the prosecutor's act of seeking the material witness warrant is integrally associated with the judicial process and entitled to absolute immunity. to view it any other way is to expose both line prosecutors and high offic